tv Charlie Rose PBS March 8, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PST
>> rose: welcome to the program, nancy reagan died on sunday, age 94. tonight we remember her legacy an her love affair with her husband. we talk to nancy gibbs and michael duffy. >> you know mike defer once said if he was the testify long president, she was the fly paper first lad eyement and at thend of the first year in office, she was one of the most unpopular first ladies in modern history. and by the end of her eight years in the white house, she had successfully reinvented her severe and her image. but it was what she was willing to sacrifice in terms of her own standing in order to serve as the champion and protecter and guardian of her husband was remarkable. >> rose: and we continue this evening looking at apple, a company in the news, and talk about what makes apple apple. and certainly design is part of that. and we talk this evening with
jony ive, the chief design officer. >> we will do things that some-- it's hard to articulate why you did them beyond it feels like the right thing to do. and from our experience, i think the people to see value beyond their ability to articulate why, you know. if you ask somebody ways, why they like some things, i truly have found that it has a relationship to the amount of care that was extended in it's creation. and it's a difficult one to talk about at the risk of sounding slightly grand in aspiration. but i think that we found that when we care, when we design the inside of this product, that not many people will see, when we extend that sort of care, we saw that we're making a contribution
that the culture and to humanity. >> we conclude this with mimi sheraton, her book is called 1,000 foods to eat before you die. >> the places i went, the friends i made, all of the things i did were more or less fitted that the schedule for researching foods like this, whether for "the new york times" or the konde nasdaq traveler or "the new yorker." it's my 16th book, so there are a lot of others out there. >> rose: remembering nancy reagan with nancy gibbs and mike duffy, jony ive at apple, and mimi sheraton on food when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following:
captioning sponsored by rose communications >> rose: funding for "charlie from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> former firs lady nangsee reagan died at her home in los angeles yesterday. she was 94. the cass waws con guess tiff heart failure. president obama said on sunday that she had redefined the role of first lady. she was widely considered to be her husband's closest counselor, offering quengs advice on many major decisions and personnel. her protective instinct, and independent think prg controver. critics called her queen nancy. she began her path to public life in hollywood where she starred in several films and met her future husband ronald reagan. the couple was insparrable through many triumphant years in the political spotlight. their marriage saw tragedy as well as senate majority leader mitch mcconel put it yesterday, in many ways the reagan love story was classic hollywood but it was
unmistakably human too. nancy and ron rose to the pinnacle of political power, weathered cancer and personal heartbreak and braved the depths of alzheimer's cold embrace, always together. joining me now to discuss nancy reagan's life and legacy from washington, michael duffy. he is deputy managing editor of time magazine here in new york, nancy gibbs, time magazine's editor. together they are the authors of the president's club, inside the world's most exclusive fra tirnt. i'm pleased to have them back on this program. welcome. talk about nancy reagan as a first lady. >> well, you know, coming when she did, after bete ford who had been such a transparent, authentic figure and then roselynn carter who was very earnest and high protein, here comes nancy reagan out of hollywood in her gowns and her entourage of very glamorous friends. and that was not something that washington had seen in many
years. and i think they didn't know what to make of her. and she was something of a mystery in a very different way than her husband the president was a mystery. and i think one of the things that was most point yantd about her,-- point yant about her especially initially where he was so again yal and the testify long president, no criticism would stick to him t almost all fell to her. and she became-- . >> rose: the protecter. >> she was his protecter, but in the course of that, all of the slings and arrows came to her. and so mike defer once said if he was the testify long president, she was the fly paper first lady. and at the end of the first year in office she was one of the most unpopular first ladies in modern history. and by the end of her eight years in the white house, she had successfully reinvented herself and her image but it was what she was willing to sacrifice in terms of her own standing in order to serve as the champion and protecher and guardian of her husband was remarkable. >> rose: but most of all, i
mean it was a great love story. a great love story and she-- they were best friends. it was their company that each wanted the most. >> kol inpowell told a story this morning that when she would travel to new york to see her friends, if she was away for more than a day or two, he would get a little bit off kill ter. >> you see it in the letters he wrote where he would say, you know, when you walk out of the room i feel lost. he was just extraordinary. the way that they were able to be this little unit within the most visible, imaginable household on the planet. >> rose: the biggest fish bowl in the world. i can hear you reflect on the idea he missed her. >> i think she made him feel safe. her power in the white house before and after extended from two simple things she understood about reagan. the man no one really understood, that others didn't get. she knew that he was a man, and she said this all the time,
utterly without giel, and is always surprised when others weren't the same way. and she also knew that no one would ever get close to him. she tawkd eloquently both after the presidency and after his death that there was just this barrier around him. and even she couldn't really breach that barrier. >> rose: even she couldn't. >> even she couldn't. but she, lou canon writes about this eloquently. but she understood what the bar quer was built of. it was built of a father who was abusive and a childhood that was nom addic and the rejection that he sered after the de divorce to jane w yman in the late 40see, early 50s and these wounded him deeply and he trusted very few people. he was able probably because of her own very rocky childhood which she had been passed around from parent to parent and to grandparent, and because she had been adopted by a father who was quite stern, in chicago physician, she understood, i think, what reagan had been through. and was able to, i think, at least get close enough to get
near the wall. and that made her more intimate with him than really anyone else in his life. >> rose: she had influence clearly on personnel decisions, whether this was the president's chief of staff. she had allies. you mentioned mike was clearly her closest ally. >> she from the earliest days of his career in california, she joined forces with people like stu spencer, for example, the legendary story, california consultant. who whenever there was a crisis either in the governor's office or the governor's campaigns, right on through to iran couldn't ra in the late '80s would call in stu and say come and fix it, be pie agent. she reached out to people like bob strauss, the democratic fixer who, you know, to do her workment and she was the one who pushed people in and pushed don reagan out, always having his interest at steak. and as nancy pointed out, she took a lot of arrows for that. but he always was the beneficiary. >> well, she said that her
husband being very conflict averse especially when it came to the staff around him, would sort of be in denial. if something wasn't working, if someone was underperforming, if he just looked the other way, it would all take care of itself and they said that isn't really an effective way to run things. >> rose: did she finally convince him he had to speak out and acknowledge error on iran couldn't ra? >> yes. she was the one who believed that he needed to apologize and she was a very significant force in bringing him around to that. >> in fact, when he was resistant and he resisted it for weeks, and was pushing back against all kind of republican, you know, wisemen and veterans, she then brought in more people to pub him. she knew that he was going to need a really firm nuj. and when done regan is pushed out and reagan is finally admitting that he had misremembered things in front of various commissions, and boards of inquirery, it really was nancy who had moved the pieces
into place that got him to make the admission that would allow his presidency to go forward. and they were able to conclude the final two years and get a lot of things done. but had that not happen and she not been there to push, it probably wouldn't have taken place. and that is very significant. we are in this amazing campaign year where people talk about a republican brokered convention, the last time we came close to something like that was when reagan had challenged gerald ford in 1976. and nancy was very concerned going into that summer that reagan had stayed in too long and he was damaging his reputation. she reached out to james baker who ran that campaign and said get him out. let's make our escape. let's get out of here before he does more damage. so she was always acting with his long-term goals in mind. >> you know, what interested me, because they of course were outsiders to washington. so they arrived in washington in 1981. she read nixon's memoirs and kissinger's memoirs. she went to school on how the
city works and what it would take to succeed there. how the machine ree worked. and i think was much more sense advertised to that much more int matdly. >> and found a friend in katherine graham, didn't she? >> she did. who among other things explained to her why she was the target of so much criticism. she said a lot of the people writing these stories are young women who just can't relate to you because you represented everything that they are rebelling against. >> rose: she also later, mike, became certainly after he husband's announced he had alzheimer, she became an advo kaitd of stem cells. >> among other things. one of the things people missed among the queen nancier regard-- era was just how interested she could be in things. and how moderate she was compared to not only reagan, to some of the people around him. and was quietly pushing to soften his image even before then. so just as an example that takes you to that. nancy played a huge role in the
early 19 '80s of pushing ronald reagan to do some negotiations with gorbachev on arms control. which when it wasn't exactly in vogue. in the republican party. she always had to have this moderating force inside the white house. so by the time she gets out. she begins, and he actually ver quickly disappears from public view because of alzheimer. she begins to talk in interviews, on all kinds of outlets about alzheimer, about stem cell. and she let it be known through seconds, lieutenants and other means that she was fine with same-sex marriage. so these are places where nancy reagan-- . >> rose: she had a lot of gay friends well. >> she grew up in hollywood. she was not a strange tore cultures that maybe perhaps some republicans had not experienced. and she was able to make these views known, consistently over a long period of time. so that is just another way in which she turns out to be more influential than people perhaps realize.
>> rose: what was her relationship with her clirn? >> it was very strained. although i think in the end there was some reconciliation and her daughter patty davis writes very poignantly about as president reagan de senlded into alzheimer and which was such a living hell for those who loved him. >> rose: she said the most amazing and poignant thing on that issue. she said we will so many memories. >> that we couldn't share, couldn't share them any more. and so you know, patty talks very movingly about in a way how it brought them closer together. and it was a kind of grieving before his death as he was lost to them. you go you know, i think there was a therry which the children have sometimes sulged, even, that they were so close, that ron and nancy were so close, that did t didn't really leave emotional space for anyone else. >> they loved each other more than they loved anything else.
>> uh-huh. >> in terms of russia as i remember t and correct me if i'm wrong, she became a little bit concerned about president bush after he came to the white house because she thought that they might be doing some damage to the relationship that he, president reagan, had with gorbachev. >> well that's true. it's an interesting wrinkle in republican history. after eight years of reagan which he had moved from a hard line position against the evil empire to one which involved multiple agreement, not just in arms control but in other areas, they ended that eight years with reagan and gsh chef at the-- gorbachev at the statute of liberty and it was really the triumph and what we call glassnost and president bush came into office in early 1989. and though he would eventually get to his incredible partnership with gorbachev, he spent the first seven or eight months keeping him at arms length. in fact, worse than that, basically saying he wasn't even sure he wanted to do business
with them. even as they were preparing to do all kinds of business with the russians. so by then the soviet union had collapsed or was about to collapse and there was a lot of opportunity. but in that first eight or mine month period many people from the reagan period said you're going backyards-- backwards, george, though he would right that course, it certainly looked that way. and she was i think disturbed about it and she wasn't alone. but eventually found his way toward that path. >> rose: there is some great quote from billy wilder, maybe, but one of the hollywood people who knew both of them. and when it was first announced that ronald reagan was running for president. he said no no no no, jimmy steward for president, ronald reagan for best friend. but he later said an interesting thing which was that if, that nancy in fact, had helped him become president. and if they had married earlier, he would never become president because she would have helped him win all kinds of academy awards and he would never have gotten into politics. >> she says something very interesting. in 1-9d 68 when reagan-- reagan is first being, you know, this
shiny new governor of california and being talked about as a republican candidate, and about whether she would want him to run. and remarkablynd stood even then about what that job does to you. and it was almost like she had some foresight that were that ever going to happen, were he ever to end up in the oval office, that her job would be to help him manage his job. and it is a kind of public service that is easy to forget, of what if takes to take care of the person who is taking care of everyone. and in her case, part of that protectiveness came down to, you know, managing his day and making sure he got enough sleep and how he was eating and resting. because she understood how he worked. and she understood the weight of that office on him and what he could and could not bear. and when it is someone that you love the way she loved him, to see him in that role and what it does to him, and this is even
without the assassination attempt and the complete terror that that introduced intoed experience of living day to day in the white house. >> rose: the fear of her-- terror of her losing her husband first and the terror of having to get him well. >> she uniquely knew in the moment just how close to death he came after the shooting. >> rose: mike. >> i was going to say the other thing we forget about the reagans is we sometimes think of them arriving triumphantly in washington as if they had been just touched as power. they did run as a couple in 1968. it was an embarrassing race. they decided to contest richard nixon for the nomination. they didn't come close and it was a messy, awkward jang ely affair. they did it again in 1976, taking on gerald ford. and they nearly won that time. and no one was more surprised or hurt at the end of that race than nancy. there was a great scene in kansas city at that convention where he is finally admitting that it's over, and he's talking to his closest supporters and she is in teers.
she has just fallen apart because she thought they were so close. and they did come close. by the time they run in 1980, it is the third try. and we forget that about the reagans because they were so good at telling us that those other two things are fleuks or someone else's idea or not really serious, though they were very serious. and in one case, nearly successful. it is also important to remember that she, you know, there was a lot of stuff written after don regan is pushed out. he publishes his memoir in 1987 or 88ee, and discloses the news that much of the white house schedule in the late '80s had been determined by joan quigly, her astrologer, that was a shocking revelation at the time. it is still kind of shocking. it's probably only mattered for the course of a year, and there were lots of times when reagan appeared on days that joan said he shouldn't. but it was a measure, i think, of what nancy was talking about, about how fearful she had become about his public safety, if nothing else.
i think she really did worry much more than-- and i suspect all first ladies do. about her husband's safety. >> obviously when she left the white house she had to go home with her husband who is living with alzheimer, and that was a primary concern. but how else did she live her life in los angeles when she went back. >> she lived very quietly. there were lunches with close friends. but any notion that she would have this glamorous post white house life was completely ruled out by his illness. and she really did not want to be away from him for any length of time at all. so you know t was a kind of house arrest, in a sense. of taking care of him for another ten years. and you know, this was the long good-bye. it was in a sense his very poignant letter to the country and the modeling that they did as a couple about her steadily fastness was quite powerful and moving. and she of course became very much a champion for all kinds of
research into finding a cure. >> but there was also work to be done. and because he disappeared from the scene so quickly, faster than almost any president who wasn't, you know, killed in office, by 1994 that is a year, yeah, he's disappeared. the work that needed to be done was to make sure that the reputation of the reagan legacy lived on. and she oversaw and okayeded commissioning of all kinds of books. >> and the library. >> library was the central focus. >> that the created this narrative that reagan had been much more intellectually curious. which is true. much more involved in the writing of his speeches, the writing of his radio broadcast. there came with the help of some people at key institutions around the country, you know, a kind of revived image of reagan as a thinker and a philosopher. that was not an accident. and she was very much now i want to say working the controls but she wasn't far away from them,
charlie. and that was very successful. she successful. i think there are now more books written about reagan than any other president except lincoln. worth a check but i think it's really close. i also want to say that in her final years, she was far more energetic than you would bleevment you know, last year sometime, maybe it was a year and a half ago, i can't remember, on the 10th anniversary of his death, so that would have been 14, they had a day long sort of memorial to reagan at the library. and i had gone out to speak. and my role wasn't very big. but nancy appeared late in the day and made sure she said hello to off us who had peapped. she gave a talk at his graveside. she was in a wheelchair but she, you know, was show managing to hold it together and did a great job. and i mean at that point she was well into her mid '80s. so no, it was two years ago. so it was 92. so that just told me she was a far more energetic former first lady than perhaps people understand.
>> i want to nail that point before we leave it is this notion that presidency is such a lonely job. and so any first lady has a significant connection to the presidency. as a person that sees him first in the morning, last at night, so far, if we have a female president, he sees her. first in the morning and last at night. but all first ladies have had important relationships. i mean it goes back to mrs. house, at the time of woodrow wilson, his wife. but she seemed to be a little bit different. and they play different roles. they are supportive of their husband, they are partners of their husband. but this, this person, perhaps more in a different way, had more power. >> she was almost an extension of her husband because she could in a way she could translate some of the things that even the great communicator couldn't
translate. and i think that upset people because everyone thought he was the nonpareill at that game but he wasn't as personally able to be known, hard to be intimate with, and she in some respects was the more human side of him. and that's hard, that's a big burden to bear when you have to be a protecter as well. >> and now she goes back to life next to hm in a place that they chose that overlooks the pacific. >> yeah. >> thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> thank you, mike. >> you bet. >> we continue now a series about apple asking the question what makes apple apple. last week we met the c.e.o. tim cook. this week we talk to the chief of design, jony ive. as you know apple is one of the world's best known brands and one reason is the design of its products. those designs mary beuty and functionality from the iphone to the macbook to the i pad. apple's products have been in
the vanguard of simplicity and grace in a series of conversations i spoke with jony ive. the conversations began in san francisco in september of last year. tim cook had just prentded the new iphone 6s. jony talked about it, other apple products and what design means to him, and to the company. here we are. if there is a corporation in the world, perhaps ferrari, that so identified with excellence in design. >> it is apple. >> rose: you building on the legacy you and steve jobs created, have just announced with tim cook on stage, presenting these remarkable products. i want to understand design, through the eyes of jony ive. >> i mean design is one of the, i think in many ways massively misunderstood words. i mean there were so many sort
of definitions of the word, design us to. designs that it's far beyond just what it looks like. it's the whole thing. it's how it works. it's how it feels. you know there are certain things that are easy obviously what something looks like is very often the first sort of connection that you make with a device. you know, you make i think a lot of subconscience decisions about the nature of something by what it looks like. you know, you decide how you think you would hold t how much it should cost. how much you would t would weigh. but. >> it has to do with product, houses, boats, cars. >> i remember when i was at art school and i had this, now it sounds actually very naive that i have dn studying design for so
long. but this realization that what we make describes us. it describes the things that we care about it describes our values. you know, our values. it describes our preoccupation. and one of the things, the first time i came across the mac, this is in the late '80s, one thing that happened was i was completely seduced by the object. but then what happened, and was t was the first time it happened to me i wanted to know who made this. it speaks to whether they were preoccupied and driven by price and schedule and opportunism, or whether they were driven by care and trying to make a product that would make our lives genuinely better. >> rose: it speaks to their value.
>> absolutely. i think it's a very sort of succinct testimony to the group-- i mean the company is just a group of people that get together to make something. and i think it's a very clear way of understanding what drives that group of people. >> rose: what does this say about jony ive? >> i think what it says about apple, because i'm lucky enough-- . >> rose: you work with a team. >> to work with an incredible team. well, one i think that it says a lot, there's a danger, particularly in business it is one of those things that i noticed a lot. that in the context of a business and a meeting room, we tend to be much more comfortable talk become product attributes, that you can measure with a number. that's a fairly safe conversation to talk about, five is bigger than two. and nobody is going to argue that. and so we tend to talk, historically about price and
speed. and those more emotive, less tangible, product and-- can more easilying ignored. the problem is we make probably the most important decisions of our lives in the absence of neumer kal data. i think this says is that we try to go beyond some sort of functional imperative. you know, it just doing the job is just a price of admission. and i think that we care so much more deeply than just trying to get something done. >> rose: okay, having said that, speak to me about, for you this particular thing, it has rounded edges. >> i think that our experience of this as an object is so much more than it's appearance. >> yes. >> and our connection with this is, of course, of course what it
looks like. but it is what it feels like. >> yeah. >> the materials it's made from, the more that we get into the detail of trying town stand materials, we going often fairly frus traitded and dissatisfied. so that often leads us to developing our own materials. so the glass, you know, the cover glass on the new iphone is actually a custom developed material, the same as the aluminum on the back is. it is an entirely proprietary-- . >> rose: british term for aluminum. >> it is, it gets confusing. but there's no detail that is too small that gets overlooked in terms of the care that we will extend. and i think-- . >> rose: even if it's not seen. >> well, i actually think that that is one of the things that we have talked about, is we will do thingss' hard to articulate
why you would do them other than it's the right thing to do and from our experience, i think the people to see value beyond their ability to articulate why. if you ask somebody why they like something, i truly have found that it has a relationship to the a amount of care that was extended in its creation. and it's a difficult one it talk about at the risk of sounding slightly grand in aspiration. but i think that we found that when we care, when we design the inside of this product, that not many people will see, when we extepped that sort of care we saw that we're making a contribution to culture and to
humanity. i do believe that people sense care, in the same way i think that we sense carelessness. i think we sense opportunistic products that will just develop quickly into a prize. i think people develop that. >> people sense that they look at this and they say the people who have made this care. they cared about how it felt, how it held, they cared about how it performed. >> yes. >> but it was a whole package. they cared about its functionality. but the overall impression, the first impression is the things, the tactile. >> yes. >> i mean. >> if your experience of a product i think is so many of those different attributes combined. i think it's-- as you said, i mean one of the struggles we have very often is that your experience of a product sometimes can be difficult for us to communicate, if we can't give you one age let you
experience it right now. >> you can't say it until you've seen it. >> yes. until you've seen it, you have felt it like for example, the tactile feedback, that we had to develop an entirely new technology. because the existing technologies, i think you know, produced a sort of a buzz that really wasn't anything to do with the sort of experience that we were trying to develop. >> this iphone 6s, request do some remarkable things. >> yes. >> things that we never thought could come. >> yes. >> from something like this. the power of it. the capacity to take photographs. the capacity to take live photos, that you can see it right before. >> yes. >> and what was happening right before the still photo was taken. the capacity to-- you could make a movie with this in a second. george lucas told me he could make a movie with this.
>> yes. >> it's that good. >> yeah. >> the capability is humbling, what you can do, i mean it's the stuff of dreams, really. if we were standing here eight years ago, and we had a product of this size and then a list of its capabilities, i truly think we would find it hard to even comprehend let alone believe that that was going to be possible. >> rose: what are you most proud of? this. >> is there one thing? or it simply the totality of the thing? >> i mean there are lots of little details that would be so easy to overlook as really in the big scheme as not being as important. but they are. but if there was one thing, it is the incredible collaboration
of different areas of expertise, who are, i mean groups who are the best in the world, contributing to make this product. i mean we were, early this morning we were listening about just the raw capability of the silicon that the teams developed for this product. now that wasn't, we don't just buy silicon off the shelf and just perform some sort of integration. we have this phenomenal thing of silicon designers who were custom design the silicon in this product, to address and to provide the capabilities that we were hoping for. and so to me it's just setting back and realizing how many different areas of expertise come together to make this a sing you lar product.
and i still-- . >> rose: in how many years. >> well, i mean, and that's the interesting thing. is because we're such tight teams and because people tend to say for years and years and years. when you know i have been at apple for 20 plus years and the designers i work with have as well. what happens is when we make a product,and we launch a physical thing, there is another product that people don't tend to talk about, which is in some ways arguably more significant. and that's all that we learned. >> rose: and you can live with that. >> we,. >> rose: the product you fall in love with but you couldn't solve a problem. >> i think this is off an interesting point that i think is often really not understood. that for the things you saw this morning, there are many products that sit on shelves back in the studio, and one of the things
that is shall-- is not obvious is that when we're working on something new, we don't know-- we don't know this is going to work. and so each time you come up against something that seems insur mowntdable and that there doesn't appear to be any solution, you're presented with a choice in that you can agree and a lot of people would support, support the decision that yeah, okay, this doesn't work. it's not a very good idea. you can try and push on but you have to think well, at what point am i going to sort of acquiesce and agree with everybody that yes, you're right, this isn't going to work. and i think one of the issues that is curious is that when we're copied, we understand that okay, there are, this product was copied and these features were copied. but one of the huge benefits of following is that there is a proof of concept. people know that this does work. and there is a solution.
and i think one of our-- you know, this isn't going to, without, we're going to stop and put this on the shelf it is one of the reasons we don't talk about the many things that we're exploring. because many of them don't work. >> rose: but do some work later when they didn't work now. >> they do. that is another reason we don't talk about them. >> rose: so the technology or whatever may change, the size of things. >> yes. >> rose: the new materials that come onstream. >> that is one of the things that still fascinates me is that you think are you solving this problem here. and then you actually end up spending eight months working on something that's all-- because that's what you needed to solve to do this here. you don't get there, this doesn't work and you shelf t and then you know, 18 months later, some fabulously clever person comes up with a solution and then it's relevant again.
>> maybe they see it with fresh eyes. >> i think so. i think sometimes it's fresh ice. sometimes it's just that they learn some things, because of developing other products. but there is-- one of the things that i think we all learn in the design team, really love is that this sense of how fluid this all is. so when you've tried something, and st hard to say, you know, we were wrong, this doesn't work, and you put it aside, how things are constantly changing and moving. and as long as you are inquisitive and as long as you love exploring, it's remarkable to me how we can be surprised and suddenly see something that just appeared completely irrelevant as if it would never work, suddenly becomes compelling again. >> do you feel that show you just landed at the place that you were meant to be, and that this became a place that would
call on you the use of your intelligence or creativity and capacity. >> i think that when i was at college, i really struggled with technology. and this was in the '80s. and that is when i discovered the mac. and that's what caused me-- i was so-- in so many-- you see, i assume that because i couldn't use the computers that were available to me, i assumed that they were-- that was my problem. i think it's a sur yus thing with technology, that if you can't use t you assume the problem is with you. if we need something and we don't like the taste of the food, we don't assume that that is our problem. we assume it's the food, don't we. and so of course i thought well this is me. i was techically had inept.
and i discovered the mac. and i was absolutely blown away. and so i researched and found out more and more about apple. and thought this was, this was a group of people that i wanted to join. i wanted to work alongside from. and learn. and i was in my early 20s then. and as a design consultant, i stayed in london, and i had a number of clients. and my favorite. >> and they fell in love with you too. >> we got on so well. >> and this was before steve. >> this was in the early 90s. and this was a point when-- apple was really struggling, struggling really to find its own voice again and to de fine it's own future and agenda and reason for being. and sadly started to look to
competitors to de fine some sort of agenda. that i moved from london to the cass in-- and still the some of the principals that steve had established in the company's founding was still in existence. so when he returned, it was beyond fabulous. even though i had been doing this for a long time, the creative process, i'm still completely in awe. it is the most remarkable process, where you, you know, you start with an idea that can exist with one person and it's in your head, and you argue it backwards and forwards. and you talk to yourself. and then you talk to somebody else that is just, you know, just you and i talking about an idea. but it's still a very, it's a fairly sort of internal introspective process, i think.
but one of the things that i have loved, one is that you know, on monday there's not an idea. monday morning is like the usual monday morning. and unscheduled, unpredicted monday afternoon at 2:00, there's this interesting thought that is fragile and sensitive. that starts to gain a little momentum. and gets more compelling. and there's something that happens in this process that when you give body as in make a model, make a prototype, when you give body to an idea, everything changes. when you can walk into a room where it has been before a fairly exclusive, and i mean that in the-- it imhen you can put the first model down, for one, i mean everyone looks at the same thing it galvanizes
everybody. and it includes people. and it's-- i don't know. i don't know how many times i've been lucky enough to be part of this process and every time i just think i can't believe how forth natd i am to be tagging along on this. >> because it's so what? >> you look at a company like apple, there are very specific, you know, there are specific deliverables. there are many things we do that we can't talk about with a number. and this whole process doesn't track necessarily to schedule. that's not our goal. is to meet the schedule. if it's, you know, i-- on many occasions we've been brave enough when we think the work isn't really as good as we think we should do. we'll cancel something or delay something. but i think it's a wonderful, that a process as unpredictable
and as volatile and as surprising can sit so happily nrk many ways at the center of so much of what apple does. and i think it sit there because our prime concern is making stuff for our customers, the people. we don't do this for ourselve. and i don't know, i still think it is really quit lovely that people who aren't necessarily comfortable with the process, they're-- it's just not something that is naturally comfortable, they are patient because they have been through the process a few times. and they have come to love it. >> yeah. >> yeah, it is a very special process. >> rose: mimi sheraton is here, a journalist and former restaurant critic for "the new york times" in this case fisher once said of her, i love
everything she does, and says about food. her newest book is called 1,000 foods to eat before you die. it encompasses 70 world cuisines and took ten years to complete. i'm pleased to have mimi sheraton at this table. welcome. >> delighted to be here you're a perfect eck amount-- example of somebody that called and said i have a really interesting book. >> i have-- 1,000 times before-- 1,000 times before i die. >> what is in 1,000 foods to eat before you die. >> well, i have said in the introduction and i mean it, that it's kind of an autobiography because going in search of these foods over a 60 year period writing about food, it has shaped my life. places i went, the friends i made, all of the things i did were more or less fitted into the schedule for researching foods like this, whether for
"the new york times" or konde nasdaq traveler or "the new yorker." it's my 16th book so there are a lot of others out there. >> rose: when did you find this passion for food? >> i guess when i was born. >> rose: is that right? did your mother cook. >> my mother was a wonderful, competitive, experimental cook. and my father was in the food business. he was in the wholesale fruit and produce business in washington market. now known as tri becca. >> rose: yes. >> when i go down and see the sheds and the platforms, i sort of remember. >> rose: it used to be the meat market too. >> so every conversation at the dinner table was either about how something was made or what kind of fruits and vegetables came in from all around the country to his business that day. and he had strong feelings about apples on the west coast are not as good as apples on the east coast because the nights aren't cold enough. he liked oranges from california
but grape fruit from-- so a discertainment blsd up in your mind. >> my sense is, and you correct me if i'm wrong. there are a lot of good restaurants around the country that the restaurant, the quality of restaurants has grown outside of new york. and outside of san francisco, chicago and los angeles, all of them, both cities have gotten better, i they. but in north carolina where i grow up, in new orleans, of course. there are a lot of very good places. and a lot of interesting story of the day, i saw, taking the times how good chefs are coming to new york, making a reputation korks stay as long as they wanted to but wanted to go back for whatever reason to minnesota or. >> yeah, i think-- once they've made a name here as the song goes, if you make it there you can make it anywhere. and the then go back to the place they know very well, often to bring up children in a different milieu. i know several chefs. >> rose: in a place where there is an access to a lot of
fresh food. >> yes. and they want to develop some of their native cuisine. i think the fact now we're more interested in regional and doing what's local. and they suddenly feel they can express themselves there in the competition is so terrible here. that it's sometimes is a matter of being a big fish in a smaller pound. >> rose:ing exactly. have you always eaten healthy? >> i don't eat healthy. i mean i naturally like a lot of things that are good for me. >> rose: you mean like fish, chicken, protein. >> yeah. but i like bacon and i like pork and i love hot dogs. >> rose: and do you eat them. >> i do, indeed. >> rose: can i tell how old you are. >> please. >> rose: you are 90. >> i am 90 years old and i have just tweeted that the reason that i'm still cooking, kicking, cooking, is that i eat plenty of salt because it's a preserve tiff. plenty of fat to keep my joints, glut everyone to keep me stuck together and caffeine for the brain. i have had-- . >> rose: if caffeine helps
with the brain, have i a big brain, i'm telling you. >> because i have enough caffeine for three of us. >> but i don't watch too much. i don't live like an idiot but i eat a lot of things that they-- . >> rose: do you exercise. >> no, but i will till, when i left my-- . >> rose: i don't want to hear this. >> i-- . >> rose: you look great. >> i own a brownstone. i live on three floors of it. so i go up ten flights at least, i walk up. >> rose: ten flights. >> yeah, a day, during a day. >> rose: oh, i see. >> you know, with the door bell rings have i come down and let them in and so on. but when i left "the new york times" after eight years of being the food critic, i weighed 210 pounds. >> rose: oh. >> one day i was at the hairdresser sitting in front of a full length mirror and i said i look like a club chair. and i have to get thinner. >> rose: and what did you do? >> i ate less food. >> rose: see that's what everybody says.
>> period, period. no goal, not i want to take off three pounds a week. i just knew every time i get on the scale i want to be less than the time i was on before. >> rose: the old joke, i like being thin more than i like any particular food. >> that's not true of me. believe me. >> rose: but you had the discipline not to look like an old chair. >> yeah, yeah, well, i found a way-- i developed a mantra. i'm too smart to be so fat. and i think it's worked. >> rose: do you eat with the same people or are you constantly. >> i have many, many friends so i eat with a lot of people. >> rose: who share a passion for food. >> yes, oh, absolutely. >> rose: how many nights a week do you eat out? >> four i would say. >> four out of seven. >> but not all of thoses are major restaurants. i live in the west village. and there are a lot of very nice, comfortable places that are not exorbitant and have interesting food. so one or two nights might be that. and then one or two nights it might be clock tower in upland
and, there is a french business tro i love in new york. i'm very much-- . >> rose: where is that? >> on 2nd avenue between 53rd and 54th, lemange it has been there over 40 years. yesterday i had one of the best boefbou gnono ever in my life 24r. it has a real business to taste. >> rose: this is what jean george said but. >> her knowledge knows no bounds. her gloss are of flavors is ultimate. her opinion is like gold. that's not bad. >> isn't that nice. i like him too. >> rose: so what, i get out of this, what, though. >> you get out of it several things. if you want to learn about-- . >> rose: let the don't let the sowch get warm. >> if you want to learn about wonderful things to eat there is that in it. if you want to know what the world eats which is one of my goals, i had so many things i this to drop to make way for other places in the wompletd i
think african cooking, west african is going to be a very big influence on fution cooking. >> rose: west african. >> west sen gal ease, nigerian, they are in a lot of those restaurants now in harlem and they look very much to me like they could go mainstream. i think it's the next big influence as it was on, you should know, southern and louisiana cooking, those slaves who cooked came from west africa. nd some of the dishes have i had at africa kina look like louisiana cooking. >> rose: do you buy into the idea or is it simply myth, that there are not that many great chinese restaurants in new york city, not that many, i'm being careful, because most of the great chinese chefs ended up in san francisco or somewhere else? >> i think it's true that there are not many great ones. i think more of the chefs ended up in canada, even than in san
francisco. canada, singapore, hong kong. michael tong who owns shen li said it's very, very hard to get chefs in from china because of the rules about people coming in from china, that certainly would not apply if it's true in san francisco because that's the united states. but many of them went to canada. they were invited. they were given all kinds of options in vancouver, toronto, those places have great chinese restaurants. and also suffers here from the image of being cheap food. and if you are going to have a really good restaurant, a lobster course, costs what a will be ster costs whether you are chinese or french. and also michael tong has possitied that the frequent see of takeout chinese food in the home has made a lot of people think they don't want to eat chinese food when they go out. so a lot of reasons. and it's my favorite cuisine. >> you have ever been tempted to either open a restaurant or
invest in a restaurant? >> either one, if the idea came to me i would take a warm bath until it passed though. no, i would never open a restaurant. >> rose: you bemoan one missing dish from this book. shesh want mapot tofu. >> yes t is one of my three favorite dishes in the world it was on my original list and when the gallies came back i said to my editor where is the copy for ma po dough fu. >> you didn't. >> i just didn't do it so i'm thinking maybe have i to write a book called ma po do if you which means my auntie's pok marked face. >> rose: i did a book the other day, what would you have for your last meal, several years ago. >> i would be-- i have often asked that. i would be so upset. i it don't think i could stand anything more than cold water. i always doubt those elaborate answers. not me. >> rose: just some cold water.
>> let's postpone this as long as we can. >> rose: it's great to you have here. >> i've enjoyed it very much. and thank you. >> rose: mimi sheraton, the book is called 1,000 foods to eat before you die. food lovers life list. it's great to have you. >> thank you. >> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. >> can you believe the rally? stocks and commodities up sharply since the february lows, but can you trust this market to go higher? house divided. two prominent members of the federal reserve are split on a key condition for further interest rate hikes. showing support. the big money backers behind the candidates running for the white house. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for monday, march 7th. good evening, everybody. glad you could join us. the dow and s&p 500 extended their recent rally and what a rally it's been. stocks surging helping to cut the big